First ever presidential endorsement by Scientific American

[DigitalDave]

What most dipshits won't realize is that once facts become political, we go down the fucking drain. We sit here bitching about what is true based on personal biases rather than the evidence that derived those facts. Scientific-American has never endorsed a president because they are supporting fact based approaches to solve problems. But now, we have a president who basically refuses to acknowledge facts, and just responds with 'Nuh uh', and all his supports chant 'Yay! Way to tell 'em! I'm on team dumbass!' It's gotten fucking ridiculous. So, here we are. Science doesn't support this administration, because he's a dumbass who doesn't listen, and his supporters are right there with him.

 

[Tranquillus in Exile]

Our president also knows that stealth planes are invisible to the naked eye, which would explain why nobody saw them take off from airports in the Revolutionary War.
It all fits!

 

[Phantasmal]

What most dipshits won't realize is that once facts become political, we go down the fucking drain. We sit here bitching about what is true based on personal biases rather than the evidence that derived those facts. Scientific-American has never endorsed a president because they are supporting fact based approaches to solve problems. But now, we have a president who basically refuses to acknowledge facts, and just responds with 'Nuh uh', and all his supports chant 'Yay! Way to tell 'em! I'm on team dumbass!' It's gotten fucking ridiculous. So, here we are. Science doesn't support this administration, because he's a dumbass who doesn't listen, and his supporters are right there with him.

Dave! Long time no see! Welcome back

 

[zymurgy]

What most dipshits won't realize is that once facts become political, we go down the fucking drain. We sit here bitching about what is true based on personal biases rather than the evidence that derived those facts. Scientific-American has never endorsed a president because they are supporting fact based approaches to solve problems. But now, we have a president who basically refuses to acknowledge facts, and just responds with 'Nuh uh', and all his supports chant 'Yay! Way to tell 'em! I'm on team dumbass!' It's gotten fucking ridiculous. So, here we are. Science doesn't support this administration, because he's a dumbass who doesn't listen, and his supporters are right there with him.

you are full of shit

every 4 years they enter the politician fray to help democrats. every 4 years. it is verifiably proven

this has simply become a think tank for one political party.

 

[DigitalDave]

Dave! Long time no see! Welcome back

Glad to see some familiar faces still lurking about

 

[DigitalDave]

you are full of shit

every 4 years they enter the politician fray to help democrats. every 4 years. it is verifiably proven

this has simply become a think tank for one political party.

Then prove it....

 

[zymurgy]

Then prove it....

I already did shit stain

I posted to the 2016 and 2012 articles



idiot

 

[Sailor]

That'll be the day- Buddy Holly

It has been many days, over years Micabwer. You must have that shit or go blind syndrome.

 

[DigitalDave]

you are full of shit

every 4 years they enter the politician fray to help democrats. every 4 years. it is verifiably proven

this has simply become a think tank for one political party.

So they warned of the anti-science stances of Trump in 2016 (which they were right on), and mentioned that a Republican was worried that the party was going to be known as the Anti-Science party (which it is now). Well shit, they sure as fuck called that!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So for the magazine's first 172 years - through both Republican and Democratic administrations - the magazine was non partisan, and only supposedly became partisan in the last 3 years?

It dies not sound like a credible excuse.

It actually sounds like something you pulled out of your ass

You know what sounds more credible?

That a science advocacy magazine would be horrified that Donald Trumpf thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax, and alarmed that Trumpf cannot lead a national response to a pandemic and has squandered U.S. leadership on the control of infectious diseases.

The problem goes to credibility. It's like virginity; you can't unfuck a virgin. Once a credible, non-partisan, scientific magazine enters politics, then they are no longer a credible, non-partisan, scientific magazine. They are something in between. They can't unfuck it so I expect you'll see them become even more political in the future.

Maybe this is just a marketing scheme in a country that reads more issues of People than Scientific American. It is, after all, all about the money with any corporation.

 

[Micawber]

What most dipshits won't realize is that once facts become political, we go down the fucking drain. We sit here bitching about what is true based on personal biases rather than the evidence that derived those facts. Scientific-American has never endorsed a president because they are supporting fact based approaches to solve problems. But now, we have a president who basically refuses to acknowledge facts, and just responds with 'Nuh uh', and all his supports chant 'Yay! Way to tell 'em! I'm on team dumbass!' It's gotten fucking ridiculous. So, here we are. Science doesn't support this administration, because he's a dumbass who doesn't listen, and his supporters are right there with him.

While I agree, I think a science mouthpiece cedes ground when it gets political. I agree attacking this potus is a "fact based approach" to solving a problem, but
I want science above that fray and prefer like minded citizens who support science carrying that water. It undercuts the premise to fight on their turf.

 

[zymurgy]

So they warned of the anti-science stances of Trump in 2016 (which they were right on), and mentioned that a Republican was worried that the party was going to be known as the Anti-Science party (which it is now). Well shit, they sure as fuck called that!

and 2012 and 2007

you see the pattern? - every 4 years they wring their hands and repeat the manta about how hard it is to do this, but boy is it important

and suckers fall for the shiny hook with no worm on it

 

[DigitalDave]

While I agree, I think a science mouthpiece cedes ground when it gets political. I agree attacking this potus is a "fact based approach" to solving a problem,
I want science above that fray, and let like minded people carrying that water. It undercuts the premise to fight on their turf.

I'm right there with you. I think they make a mistake by doing this because they add fuel to the fire for the anti-science crowd, but I agree with their stance.

 

[Sailor]

The problem goes to credibility. It's like virginity; you can't unfuck a virgin. Once a credible, non-partisan, scientific magazine enters politics, then they are no longer a credible, non-partisan, scientific magazine. They are something in between. They can't unfuck it so I expect you'll see them become even more political in the future.

Maybe this is just a marketing scheme in a country that reads more issues of People than Scientific American. It is, after all, all about the money with any corporation.

I love this guy!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

An idiot could frame it that way but it just shows science has lost it's objectivity and is a political tool.

An idiot could frame it that way but the fact remains we're talking about a magazine owned by capitalists, not "science" itself since that would be anthropomorphizing a method of study...which would be fucking moronic, amirite?

 

[zymurgy]

I'm right there with you. I think they make a mistake by doing this because they add fuel to the fire for the anti-science crowd, but I agree with their stance.

why isn't the fight against hydroxycloroquine anti-science?

the claim of police brutality is a lie (Actuarial science)

global warming - have the marxist explain how taking from the few so the many can consume more will work - seems pretty anti science to me

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I love this guy!

TBH, I hated the fucking boat. Shore leave was a lot more fun!

 

[Dutch Uncle]

why isn't the fight against hydroxycloroquine anti-science?

the claim of police brutality is a lie (Actuarial science)

global warming - have the marxist explain how taking from the few so the many can consume more will work - seems pretty anti science to me

No, the support of HCQ is anti-science. That's the problem when people mix politics and science. The Democrats did it with global warming and the Republicans, predictably, went fucking nuts.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Ever notice how white Democrats always go after the black guy?

Only the RW black guys. They do the same to black gals too....and with a lot more venom than white gals. I always thought odd about them.

 

[zymurgy]

No, the support of HCQ is anti-science.

not support - study.

what is anti-science is claiming a medicine that has been used for 60 years with little side effects is extremely dangerous and can't be investigated - and that is being decided by democratic politicians

https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/henry-ford-docs-pen-open-letter-on-hydroxychloroquine-study

The most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. However, this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze. Therefore, a whole scientific field exists in which scientists examine how a drug is working in the real world to get as best an answer as they can as soon as possible. These types of studies can be done much more rapidly with data that is already available, usually from medical records.